WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Lanefan]

There are a few problematic areas with planescape. One is that it not only relies on alignment, but relies alignment as a metaphysical concept, though not without individual choice.

Good. Alignment is a fine basis on which to build an in-balance cosmology.

This sort of doubles down on concepts of inherent good or inherent evil they've been trying to get away from.

Even better.

 

[Lanefan]

That doesn't sound "insane" to me. It sounds stupid and detrimental to the hobby.

How so?

I mean, I don't give a flip if I'm using FR and I've made it different from anyone else's FR - I don't need to be consistent with anyone else. But I do have to be consistent with myself, which means ignoring any "official" lore updates once I lock the setting in place. Official lore updates and time advances just make my job harder, which is - I would think - the opposite of what WotC should be aiming for.

I mean, if I ever use FR again (unlikely, but never say never) it'll be the late-1e-era gray box version.

What I don't get is how "leaving a setting's lore alone" equates to "detrimental to the hobby". Instead of spending person-power and time on updating an existing setting (other than straight-up mechanics conversion from edition to edition), spend it on making new ones. Settings, like adventures, are something there can never be too many of.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sorry, but I don't have much respect for preferences that would prefer that the game be literally unplayable

Please elaborate. How does not updating a setting's lore make it and-or the game unplayable?

than have settings be occasionally reconned.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I know this sounds insane to many of you, but I value setting consistency over raw playability.

What you want is fine and dandy, but it is the not wanting new and different takes on the classics that some of us want, that irks.

I would never, ever consider playing in classic Dragonlance, particularly in the original modules. As far as I am concerned it was a setting too dominated by the novels. I enjoyed the novels (some of them) back in the day and would watch a tv series on the Companions of the Lance.
My nephew is talking about running the new adventure and I will play. It sounds interesting.
I am interested in the boardgame, after all I enjoyed playing the old TSR War of the Lance game. Now that I think about an Eldritch Horror coop boardgame of the original modules could be fun.

My point is, though I would never, ever touch the original Dragonlance source material. I used to be interested in the idea of canon, back in the 3.x era I purchased a lot of the 3.x FR source books and read them, never used the material and found I almost never remembered it after reading it.

 

[Velderan]

What you want is fine and dandy, but it is the not wanting new and different takes on the classics that some of us want, that irks.

I would never, ever consider playing in classic Dragonlance, particularly in the original modules. As far as I am concerned it was a setting too dominated by the novels. I enjoyed the novels (some of them) back in the day and would watch a tv series on the Companions of the Lance.
My nephew is talking about running the new adventure and I will play. It sounds interesting.
I am interested in the boardgame, after all I enjoyed playing the old TSR War of the Lance game. Now that I think about an Eldritch Horror coop boardgame of the original modules could be fun.

My point is, though I would never, ever touch the original Dragonlance source material. I used to be interested in the idea of canon, back in the 3.x era I purchased a lot of the 3.x FR source books and read them, never used the material and found I almost never remembered it after reading it.

I think you're taking @Micah Sweet too literally. They've generally had good things to say about the new DL book since the details have been revealed, because it hasn't changed too much of the original lore and setting material while managing to tell a new story and shine a light on characters we haven't previously seen much of such as Kansaldi. I read what they've been saying as "you can respect the source material while bringing it up to current edition standards". If a setting is so problematic, they'd rather see it left as is and create something new than have a favorite old setting be changed so much it's barely recognizable.

 

[Remathilis]

What I don't get is how "leaving a setting's lore alone" equates to "detrimental to the hobby". Instead of spending person-power and time on updating an existing setting (other than straight-up mechanics conversion from edition to edition), spend it on making new ones. Settings, like adventures, are something there can never be too many of.

@Snarf Zagyg has spent reems of e-paper arguing that Greyhawk needs a new book to promote visibility. If the setting is to have players that aren't drawing pensions, a new book is needed to get it out in the public's consciousness again. I agree. After 30 years, how many people even remember Birthright was ever a setting, let alone played it? However, there is no way WotC isn't going to make changes to it. So we have the terms.

Imagine if, as part of the 1D&D project, WotC announced they would focus on only new settings. No classic settings, just new worlds and MTG conversions. The lore of Greyhawk would be preserved forever at whatever point you want (Folio, From the Ashes, LGG). Never to see an update again. Would that make you happy? It does @Micah Sweet . He's said better dead than retread. Is the preservation of lore worth the setting increasingly played by a dwindling group of aging players? People have already lamented that more people know Exandria than Oerth, I can't imagine what 5 years of new settings would do to the institutional memory of the TSR era settings.

So to all those people who would rather see a setting die than change, be careful what you wish for. In ten years, you might sit down next to a player who has never heard of Greyhawk and thinks it is as antiquated as downwards AC...

 

[AnotherGuy]

@Snarf Zagyg has spent reems of e-paper arguing that Greyhawk needs a new book to promote visibility. If the setting is to have players that aren't drawing pensions, a new book is needed to get it out in the public's consciousness again. I agree. After 30 years, how many people even remember Birthright was ever a setting, let alone played it? However, there is no way WotC isn't going to make changes to it. So we have the terms.

Imagine if, as part of the 1D&D project, WotC announced they would focus on only new settings. No classic settings, just new worlds and MTG conversions. The lore of Greyhawk would be preserved forever at whatever point you want (Folio, From the Ashes, LGG). Never to see an update again. Would that make you happy? It does @Micah Sweet . He's said better dead than retread. Is the preservation of lore worth the setting increasingly played by a dwindling group of aging players? People have already lamented that more people know Exandria than Oerth, I can't imagine what 5 years of new settings would do to the institutional memory of the TSR era settings.

So to all those people who would rather see a setting die than change, be careful what you wish for. In ten years, you might sit down next to a player who has never heard of Greyhawk and thinks it is as antiquated as downwards AC...

It is the problem a lore-lover like me has. I like preservation but at the same time would enjoy some visibility of my setting. My mind is a mess I tell you.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Seems to be hyperbole claiming things are unplayable.

I prefer faithful adaptions of older setting doesn't have to be carbon copy.

Also not opposed to new stuff a new setting or mtg one I don't care what they do. Time will judge what sticks and what doesn't.

Toning down aspects are fine chainsaw approach not so much.

Saying that consistency to 20-year old lore is more important than playability is ensuring that the franchise will die out.

As @Levistus's_Leviathan correctly points out, would fans of the old lore even buy such product, since they already own a lot of the lore?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Saying that consistency to 20-year old lore is more important than playability is ensuring that the franchise will die out.

As @Levistus's_Leviathan correctly points out, would fans of the old lore even buy such product, since they already own a lot of the lore?

The lore of Dragonlance, for example, was updated consistently from DL1 in the early 80s to the last Sovereign Press release in the early 2000s. In what way did that kill the franchise? Many other franchises have been similarly updated consistently for even longer.

 

[Maxperson]

As a Planescape fan who has just... not dared to look directly at Faction War, I see good reason to leave settings as-is and to just update the rules and flesh out new details. Advancing the timeline is fine to do in novels, and to have as timeline supplements (going into the past or alternate timelines, as well!), but the core setting should be frozen as its base at the most interesting time to be in that setting.

The problem is that what you find to be interesting is not what I might find to be interesting. Let's take the Forgotten Realms. The 1e version was fun. Then along came 2e and the Avatar Crisis and it became a lot more interesting. Then 3e didn't change much, so it was still interesting. 4e brought the whole sundering, though, which even had I played 4e would have hated, so I wouldn't have used it. That said, I bet I can find a good number of people who didn't really care about the Avatar Crisis, but did find the Sundering to be very interesting.